Tensegrity Robot via NASA 360 UTube

[cixe]

Tensegrity is a word concoction--- portmanteau --- created by B Fuller and adopted by some dictionaries.

 

Dictionaries evolve i.e. dictionaries adopt newly concocted words and new definitions to already existing words.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eC4A2PXM-U&feature=player_embedded

 

cixe/r6

Dymaxion term/word--- portmanteau ---was coined by a journalist interviewing Fuller for his prototype/speculatve mass-prodcable hexagonal house tension-integrity house.

 

 

...."Kaiser had dabbled with cars since 1942. In that year he commissioned Buckminster Fuller, the industrial designer, to design a car. Fuller came up with what he called a dymaxion car, a three-wheel job, with a motor that could be hitched to front or rear, or to any of the three wheels. He made a mock-up of the car’s tear-drop body in plywood. This and engineering drawings he submitted to Kaiser, expecting Kaiser to commission him to do the further necessary engineering toward a completed prototype.

 

....Kaiser shipped the plywood mock-up of the dymaxion car to his cement plant at Permanente, Calif. There, without waiting for such refinements as a specially designed motor, he slung a secondhand Willys-Knight engine on the three-wheel job and started riding."

 

http://kaiserpermanentehistory.org/latest/henry-j-kaiser-and-buckminster-fullers-dymaxion-car/

 

r6/cixe

Edited March 16, 2015 by cixe

[imatfaal]

I have a ship's wheel behind me from a ship made by Kaiser Co. Inc. Sorry if that is a bit random - but it fitted with the nature of the thread...

[Strange]

Tensegrity is a word concoction--- portmanteau --- created by B Fuller and adopted by some dictionaries.

 

Dictionaries evolve i.e. dictionaries adopt newly concocted words and new definitions to already existing words.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eC4A2PXM-U&feature=player_embedded

 

That looks really interesting. If there are others, like me, who can't watch videos there is a good description here:

http://www.wired.com/2015/03/robot-collapses-pressure-good-way/

[cixe]

I have a ship's wheel behind me from a ship made by Kaiser Co. Inc. Sorry if that is a bit random - but it fitted with the nature of the thread...

Take the 'helm' imatfaal. And perhaps you can have an epitaph like Fullers.."the call me trimtab"....

 

Do you have one of Kaisers trimtabls as well? ;--)

 

This proposed dymaxaion car 1in 1942, unlike his 30's dymaxions, was design to steered in front and have front wheel drive. The rear steering would be kept also for parking.

 

What poeple dont understand about those times, is that there was a creative boon to be had because the future technologies were coming and all were looking for this, or that, for the future of humanity, or just what might be practically useful.

 

So we have tensegrity robots, when do we get tensegrity cars? The wind will blow them off the road is a key problem, but can you imagine the gas mileage?

 

Maybe just tensegrity harness for passengers?

 

How bout a tensegrity cargo ship?

 

cixe/r6

Edited March 16, 2015 by cixe

[swansont]

So we have tensegrity robots, when do we get tensegrity cars?

Are they a viable technology?

 

The wind will blow them off the road is a key problem

I guess that's a no.

[cixe]

How bout just a harness?

How bout a tensegrity cargo ship?

 

Wind blowing tensegrity cargo ship across ocean is not a problem, tho air cargo tensegrity might be faster.

 

Ive often thought of concocting a protective bubble for passenger is way to go, but tensegrity bubble certainly absorb impact, yet, the brain still moves around in the skull, and we know from football that is still a key problem ergo, a tensegrity based brain is needed. imho

 

So a protein based nano-tensegrity, that way we can spread out the nervous system, ergo, minimizing jostling of the individual componets. I'm not a nuero-surgen nor a nano-scientist.

 

r6/cixe

 

[swansont]

You still haven't established any reason that this technology would be an improvement over existing technology.

[imatfaal]

 

Wind blowing tensegrity cargo ship across ocean is not a problem, tho air cargo tensegrity might be faster.

...

 

Most of the mass of a cargo ship is made up of the cargo not the ship itself. The modern ships I know about will be about in the ratio 3:13 shipmass to cargomass. And - this is not my area at all - I believe that they are loaded in such a way as to minimize stress/tension/compression rather than take advantage of it.

 

you must bear in mind the quite awesome size of the ships that carry the majority of the world's cargo - a decent but average oil tanker fully laden would tip the scales at over a third of a million metric tonnes (in the past we had ships that would be way over 600,000 metric tonnes when laden if you could find a set of bathroom scales big enough). It takes a lot of wind to accelerate / overcome friction on a ship of that size

[cixe]

You still haven't established any reason that this technology would be an improvement over existing technology.

 

Fuller called it ephemeralizaiton--- doing more with less ----.

 

So your question becomes is there a reason to do more with less?

 

Yes there is;

 

1) we live on planet consisting of finite energy resources,

 

2) the sun is a finite source of energy,

 

3) our population growth is outpacing the current systems-in-place, that, are required to sustain that growth, and sustain the ecological environmemt, that, sustains the current number of humans. imho

 

cixe/r6

 

[Strange]

But that goal has to be tempered by reality/practicality. As Einstein never said: make it as simple as possible but no simpler.

[cixe]

 

Most of the mass of a cargo ship is made up of the cargo not the ship itself. The modern ships I know about will be about in the ratio 3:13 shipmass to cargomass. And - this is not my area at all - I believe that they are loaded in such a way as to minimize stress/tension/compression rather than take advantage of it.

 

you must bear in mind the quite awesome size of the ships that carry the majority of the world's cargo - a decent but average oil tanker fully laden would tip the scales at over a third of a million metric tonnes (in the past we had ships that would be way over 600,000 metric tonnes when laden if you could find a set of bathroom scales big enough). It takes a lot of wind to accelerate / overcome friction on a ship of that size

 

Imatfall, I'm no the engineer on spaceship Earth. I'm the navigator.

 

You,Imatfaal, are the hemlsman, Swansot is Spacehip Earths counselor, Strange is the first mate and his duties are.....well, those duties are strange.

 

The captain of Spaceship Earth died in 1982, and our prime directive is locked in his lockbox and he is the only one with the codes to that box. The coal and later petroleum industrial age infrastructure is in decay and as always, the future of what to replace the past it is a speculative unknown.

 

Fuller first attempt was his quasi-tensegritly-like, mass-reproduceable, hexagonal, dymaxion house. He offered drawings for similar light-weight, 10-floor towers. Then his originally-design-to-fly car. Then his 2nd dymaxion house.--- currently at Henry Ford Museum in Detroit --- and his final attempt was his fiberglass fly's-eye dome--- not the exact geometry he requested ----.

 

The link belows touches on these ideas above by some looking to see our future.

..."Catabolic Ephemeralization"....

 

 

http://nea-polis.net/2013/10/24/catabolic-ephemeralization-carson-versus-greer/

 

r6

 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2015 by cixe

[swansont]

 

Fuller called it ephemeralizaiton--- doing more with less ----.

 

So your question becomes is there a reason to do more with less?

 

Yes there is;

 

1) we live on planet consisting of finite energy resources,

 

2) the sun is a finite source of energy,

 

3) our population growth is outpacing the current systems-in-place, that, are required to sustain that growth, and sustain the ecological environmemt, that, sustains the current number of humans. imho

 

cixe/r6

 

 

No, those are different questions. Sure, there is a reason for doing more with less — if you can. The question remains if you can actually do more with less. That's your claim, and you need to back it up.

[cixe]

But that goal has to be tempered by reality/practicality. As Einstein never said: make it as simple as possible but no simpler.

 

Ive not suggested otherwise. The simpler it is, the more easy is it is to reproduce ex hydrogen is the most simple and the most abundant element of Universe ergo most repredouced element.

 

Bacteria are simplest single-cell biologicals and left unchecked woud massively reproduce there mass to equal that of known Universe--- in 90's known Universe masss ---according to Fred Hoyle.

 

If Steve Jobs always let practical stop him he would never have gotten to his goals that, required pushing of what was known. The desdktop mouse was partly invented by a person who's business was creative thought processing to find options.

 

It was this person who invented the little signs we have seen on some public bathrooms occupied{ space } and non-occupied{ space }.

 

We now have motorized unicyles with the internal gyerscopes and they come after the original 2-wheel thingies with gyrescope some years back. Do they meet your reality/practicality test?

 

Is a square house more practical/realistic than a round house? Not if all the systems in place are designed for square house.

 

Is the metric system more practical/realistic than English system? Not if systems in place are English. Yet teh conversion did begin in some areas.

 

More efficient keyboard layouts were invented but the industrial standard was already in place.

 

The industrial standard was MS, tho Apples was better Operating System.

 

How much loss of realism/practicality drop now to get to a more realistic/practical future?

 

Fuller states that, there are ttwo kinds of evolution;

 

Class-1--- humans indirectly-- side-effects ---derive the doing-more-with-less technologies as they move into the future ass-backwards-- bumping their rears --- in stead of mind-forward,

 

Class-2-- humans go mind-forward into the future using the highest technoliges available to do the most with least.

 

r6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Strange]

 

Is the metric system more practical/realistic than English system?

 

Absolutely. There can be no doubt about it. The Imperial system is stupid and wasteful.

 

 

The industrial standard was MS, tho Apples was better Operating System.

 

The industrial standard was Unix, for a very long time. The only reason Apple's OS may be better is because it builds on the open-source movement's attempt to copy Unix (and stole some ideas from Xerox PARC).

[cixe]

 

No, those are different questions. Sure, there is a reason for doing more with less — if you can. The question remains if you can actually do more with less. That's your claim, and you need to back it up.

 

Huh? Back what up? Here we go with the uneccesary chain-yanking of anothers pychie.

 

Give it break Somersot. Go yank somebody else's chain. Your not making any sense and acting like as if got your panties are in a twit.

 

Sad :--( What a waste of mind/intellect bandwidth imho. Now we wait for the tag team of chain-yanking to begin. Sad :--( waste of intellectual bandwidth. imho

 

Ego rules at this forum not mind/intellect and certainly not realism or practicality. imho

 

r6/cixe

[Bignose]

Huh? Back what up? Here we go with the uneccesary chain-yanking of anothers pychie.

 

Give it break Somersot. Go yank somebody else's chain. Your not making any sense and acting like as if got your panties are in a twit.

 

Sad :--( What a waste of mind/intellect bandwidth imho. Now we wait for the tag team of chain-yanking to begin. Sad :--( waste of intellectual bandwidth. imho

 

Ego rules at this forum not mind/intellect and certainly not realism or practicality. imho

 

r6/cixe

cixe,

 

all swansont is saying is that it doesn't mean anything to just tell us that a new method is more energy efficient. You have to demonstrate the increased energy efficiency. That is what is meant by "back it up": support the statement.

 

Words alone don't mean much. "We should cure cancer." Yes, that would be nice. Everyone agrees it would be nice. But did making this statement actually do anything? No. What is important is how to cure cancer.

 

Your comments about energy efficiency are the same. "We should do more with less." Again, yes, everyone agrees. But how? How does this increase energy efficiency? Does it actually work? This is what you've being asked to provide. Your statement alone isn't worth anything. You need to back your statement up with evidence.

 

Lastly, probably want to drop the insults. No one have been insulting to you.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Bignose

[Phi for All]

 

Huh? Back what up? Here we go with the uneccesary chain-yanking of anothers pychie.

 

Give it break Somersot. Go yank somebody else's chain. Your not making any sense and acting like as if got your panties are in a twit.

 

Sad :--( What a waste of mind/intellect bandwidth imho. Now we wait for the tag team of chain-yanking to begin. Sad :--( waste of intellectual bandwidth. imho

 

Ego rules at this forum not mind/intellect and certainly not realism or practicality. imho

 

r6/cixe

 

!

Moderator Note

You're wrong, and I really want you to understand why.

 

It's not ego that rules here. That's why we're not going to let YOUR ego dictate what good ideas are. Evidence rules here. Show why your idea will work, not just that it could be a good idea.

 

And I agree, you need to stop insulting people. No more warnings, enough is enough.